Ct Mukesh Kumar Yadav vs Gnct Of Delhi And Ors. on 20 September, 2017
In Ex. Ct. Jasminder Singh v. Union of India & Anr., 2009 (113)
DRJ 11 (DB), the petitioner was similarly dismissed from service by
invoking clause (b) of the 2nd proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution
while dispensing with the departmental inquiry. The petitioner too was a
W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 26 of 44
police constable. The allegation against the petitioner was that there was a
gang of criminals consisting of one Sandeep, Jitender Rathi @ Kala, Sanjay,
Virender etc., which was involved in several heinous crimes including
murder, armed dacoity etc. Nine members of the gang had been caught by
the Crime Branch of North Distt. Their interrogation had revealed that the
petitioner was an associate of the gang. Specific instances of the
involvement of the petitioner with the members of the said gang - known as
Bhoori gang, were narrated in the order of dismissals. The petitioner had
not reported at the concerned police station about the involvement of gang
members in heinous offences. Instead, he had assisted the criminals. The
involvement of the petitioner had been revealed during the interrogation of
various persons, namely, members of the Bhoori gang. The competent
authority concluded that none of these criminals are going to depose against
the petitioner if a departmental inquiry is conducted against him. For this
reason, and other reasons recorded in the order, the holding of an inquiry
against the petitioner was dispensed with as it was not considered reasonably
practicable, and he was dismissed from service. The appeal preferred by the
petitioner before the appellate authority was also dismissed and his revision
before the Commissioner of Police was also rejected. The O.A. was
dismissed by the Tribunal leading to the filing of the writ petition before this
Court. Similar arguments were raised in this case, as the petitioner has
raised in the present case. It was argued that there was no material to show
that the petitioner was in a position to influence or terrorize the witnesses;
holding of the disciplinary inquiry was the rule, and dispensing with the
holding of the same is the exception. Sufficient reasons for dispensing with
the disciplinary inquiry have to exist, and should be recorded so as to
W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 27 of 44
conclude that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry in the
given facts and circumstance of the case. The petitioner placed reliance on
the following decisions in support of his submission: